HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_GGAF_09.28.2009
MINUTES
GENERAL GOVERNMENT AND FINANCE (GGAF) ADVISORY SUBCOMMITTEE
OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS
The General Government and Finance (GGAF) Advisory Subcommittee met at 1:30 p.m. on
Monday, September 28, 2009, in the City Hall Main Floor Conference Room, located at 113
East 8th Street, Georgetown, Texas.
Keith Brainard welcomed everyone to the meeting and called the meeting to order at 1:35
p.m.
1. Approval of minutes from the September 1, 2009 meeting - Danella Elliott
The minutes were approved.
2. Original Agenda Item #5: Discussion regarding water conservation block rates and
related policies - Jim Briggs
Glenn Dishong provided background information. He noted that they conducted a conservation pilot
in Sun City, trying to test the feasibility of a twice/week watering schedule and study the effect of
feedback on water demand. The information used to revise it was a water conservation plan,
drought contingency plan and conservation rate structure. The conclusions were that the customers
were more likely to conserve on a two day schedule, but conservation can be achieved on a three
day schedule. The current rate structure has limited influence on water conservation. The
customers recommendations were that the actions be taken in the following order: 1. implement
customer usage feedback, 2. revise the rate structure, 3. implement watering restrictions, and 4.
expand the treatment facilities (increase all rates).
Members Present: Keith Brainard, Chair, Patty Eason, Dale Ross
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer, Paul Brandenburg, City Manager, Laurie
Brewer, Assistant Director of Finance and Administration, Jim Briggs, Assistant City Manager,
Glenn Dishong, Kathy Ragsdale, Elizabeth Cook, Robert Fite, Leticia Zavala, Chris Foster
L:\Division\finance\Share2\GGAFSub\GGAF Meetings\2009\9.28.09\09.28.09 Minutes.doc
Discussion on the water rate changes: The current rates have been in effect since 2003 and the
base rate hasn’t been adjusted since 1985. The committee feels that growing the base rates
according to inflation (over 2 years), and then making it part of the annual budget process so you are
not hit with a major “pop” all at one time is fair and equitable. This could be incorporated into the
Fiscal and Budgetary Policy so that it would be institutionalized.
Keith asked the committee their thoughts of growing the $2.25 to 1 degree or another, catching up to
inflation since the rates were last changed in 2003. Using the average of 2.5% inflation over the
past 6 years, making it about 15% more or less, raising the rate 10-15% over 2 years. The rate
could be raised five or ten cents each year, making it $2.35 to $2.45. Patty wanted to make sure
that low income citizens are covered by being aggressive and seeking them out, not waiting for them
to come to us. We should be very deliberate about education on conservation rates and utilization of
water.
Keith also favors changing the threshold of the 2nd tier grades from 9,000 gallons to 20,000 gallons –
the lowest rates stay in effect until 20,000 gallons. We don’t want to send out the message that
Georgetown residents shouldn’t have a yard and that the first drop of irrigation is going to cost you a
lot more. Keith asked the committee their opinion on changing the structure so that the first increase
is after 20,000 rather than after 9,000. The committee agreed to bring the figure 15,000 to 20,000
gallons to the dais and discuss it then. Suggestion is to agree with all of staff recommendations and
grow by inflation rate to be determined later.
After discussion, Micki will do some modeling, using 18,000 gallons and growing the
proposed rates by an inflationary index related to utilities. This item will be on the October
26th agenda again.
3. Original Agenda Item #2: Overview and discussion of the 2009/10 Contract for
Services between the City and the Emergency Services District (ESD) #8 that will be
considered on the October 13, 2009 City Council agenda - Laurie Brewer
In May of 2005, a public vote was passed for the formation of Emergency Services District #8 for the
Georgetown Fire Protection District. An Emergency Services District (ESD), under the Texas Health
and Safety Code; Chapter 775, is a geographical area supported by taxes to provide emergency
services within the area that is governed by a County appointed Commission.
Emergency Service Districts are created to allow for improvements in rural fire protection areas and
intended to build a partnership with municipalities to ensure adequate service delivery is provided.
The geographic area for this district is Georgetown's Rural Fire Protection District.
In order to provide sufficient funding for an Emergency Service District a tax is charged based upon
property evaluations. The tax rate is set up to a maximum of 10 cents per $100 evaluation. There
are 5 appointed ESD Commissioners that represent a cross-section of the District and meet on a
regular basis to determine administrative policy and perform financial oversight of the district.
Commissioners are appointed for a two-year term.
The City of Georgetown has provided fire protection in the County through a Rural Fire Protection
Agreement for an annual $60,000 for many years. The costs for such services far exceed the
contracted amount. An Emergency Service District allows for the continued service delivery of a
rural fire protection area that has been covered by Georgetown for the last half century. The County
has begun paying this money to the ESDs rather than the municipalities.
L:\Division\finance\Share2\GGAFSub\GGAF Meetings\2009\9.28.09\09.28.09 Minutes.doc
The City of Georgetown provides the personnel, facilities and equipment to provide fire protection,
emergency rescue services and emergency medical first responder services to ESD#8. The cost of
these services are adjusted annually and are based upon total cost of services and the number of
calls in the ESD.
The proposed contract amount for 2010 is $909,988 for fire and emergency services. This includes
a total contract price of $1,023,321 and a credit of $113,333 for firefighter costs paid by the district in
2009.
The ESD has also agreed to participate in a joint planning study for a Fire Services Master Plan and
will also turn over the $60,000 mutual aid funds to the City.
This is the figure the County agreed to at their last meeting.
The committee thanked Laurie and Chief Fite for the presentation.
4. Discussion and possible recommendation to approve the annual support services
and contracts renewal for fiscal year 2009/10 for Information Technology vendors
providing services and support to the City of Georgetown - Leticia Zavala
This item is for the annual support services and maintenance agreement renewals with Information
Technology vendors for various City computer systems and applications. This item is also for
approval for purchasing equipment and services for IT-supported systems that are in the approved
fiscal year 2009/10 IT internal service fund budget.
All equipment described below has been reviewed by consultants to ensure the City does not incur
stranded costs related to future improvements to network infrastructure.
The following vendors and amounts are approved in the FY09/10 Information Technology
budget and division budgets:
The City will renew its annual maintenance agreement with Queues Enforth Development, Inc.
(QED) in the amount of $38,976. QED provides the City with its public safety computer aided
dispatch (CAD) system currently used by Police and Fire. The CAD system is a sole-source
application.
The City will renew its annual maintenance agreement with Incode, Inc. for the City’s financial
information system in the amount of $83,000. This agreement provides system service and support,
enhancements, and upgrades. The Invision application is a sole-source system.
The City will renew its annual maintenance agreement with Novell and Lotus Notes support
contracts through Software House Inc. (SHI) for a not-to-exceed amount of $68,000. This amount
includes the annual maintenance renewal for Lotus Notes and Novell Netware licenses and support.
SHI is a Texas Department of Information Resources (DIR) vendor and has been used by the City
for several years for IT-related purchases.
The City will purchase equipment from EST Group (previously Harding Group) for a not-to-exceed
amount of $162,500. This amount will cover new storage area network equipment along with
annual maintenance and support. EST Group is a Texas Department of Information Resources
(DIR) vendor and has been used by the City for several years for IT-related purchases.
L:\Division\finance\Share2\GGAFSub\GGAF Meetings\2009\9.28.09\09.28.09 Minutes.doc
The City will renew its annual contract with CDW-G for a not-to-exceed amount of $130,000. CDW-
G is the government subsidiary of CDW Corporation, a hardware/software reseller. The City plans to
purchase servers and equipment related to life cycle replacements in the internal service fund.
CDW-G is a Department of Information Resources (DIR) vendor for IT-specific items and has been
used by the City for several years for IT-related purchases, i.e. printers, software and maintenance
contracts.
The City will purchase servers from Integration Holding Corporation for a not-to-exceed amount of
$46,000. The City plans to purchase servers related to backup appliances and equipment due to
life cycle replacements in the internal service fund. Integration Holding Corporation is a Texas
Department of Information Resources (DIR) vendor and has been used by the City for several years
for IT-related purchases
The City will contract with InterNetwork Experts (INX) for a not-to-exceed amount of $250,000 for
Networking and IP telephone system support and service along with hardware purchases. The
original IP telephone system was implemented in 2000/01. Upgrades have not been implemented on
the IP system since the original implementation and the current equipment is obsolete and no longer
supported. A major software upgrade to the existing phone system is being funded to incorporate
needed functionality for new AMI/CIS systems. INX is a Department of Information Resources (DIR)
vendor.
The City will contract with Active Network, Ltd for $35,000 for the renewal of Class software (Parks
& Recreation) maintenance and Mobile Issue Manager Service application software and
maintenance. The Active Network, Ltd. is a sole-source vendor of both applications.
The City will purchase 32 PCs and notebooks from Dell Computer Corporation for a not-to-exceed
amount of $32,000. This amount will cover new systems purchases, maintenance, and support for
four years to replace PCs that have exceeded their useful life and are no longer warrantied. Dell is
a Department of Information Resources (DIR) vendor.
The City will contract with Austin Ribbon and Computer for a not-to-exceed amount of $92,000 for
the purchase of 14 Panasonic Toughbooks for public safety. This amount will cover new
purchases, maintenance, and support for 5 years as part of the ongoing internal service fund
replacement cycle. Austin Ribbon and Computer is a Department of Information Resources (DIR)
vendor.
L:\Division\finance\Share2\GGAFSub\GGAF Meetings\2009\9.28.09\09.28.09 Minutes.doc
Vendor Summary Report
The following vendors and amounts are approved in the fiscal year 2009/10 information: Technology budget:
IT Annual Maintenance:
2009/102008/09
VendorProduct/ServiceAmountAmount
Queues Enforth Development (QED)Computer Aided Dispatch (911 CAD)38,97638,976
Software maintenance and support
Incode, Inc.Financial Information System maintenance83,00071,065
Software maintenance and support
Software House, Inc. (SHI)Lotus Notes Licenses and support68,00070,000
Netware Licenses
XP, SQL, Office 2003
Software maintenance and support
ESTgroup, Inc.Software maintenance and support23,500
InterNetwork Experts (INX)Software maintenance and support92,000140,000
Active Network, LTDParks & Rec software and Service Ticket System35,00036,000
Annual Maintenance 340,476356,041
IT Equipment Purchases:
2009/102008/09
VendorProduct/ServiceAmountAmount
ESTgroup, Inc.Data Storage/Network Equipment (1)139,000
CDW-GNetwork Hardware/Software ISF Replacements130,00050,000
Integration Holding CorporationServer Replacement46,000
IBM DirectServer Replacement 100,000
InterNetwork Experts (INX)Phone System Upgrades (2)158,000
Dell Computer CorporationPC, Notebook purchases32,00075,000
Austin Ribbon and ComputerPanasonic Toughbooks92,000120,000
(1) Includes $139,000 for network equipment upgrades for data storage requirements for AMI/CIS project
(2) Includes $140,000 for phone system upgrades - original implementation 2000/01+
Annual Equipment Purchases597,000345,000
Total ISF Contracts/Purchase $937,476$701,041
Budget
GL Account Number 570-5-0641-51-341456,181
GL Account Number 570-5-0641-52-330275,234
GL Account Number 570-5-0641-51-745206,061
L:\Division\finance\Share2\GGAFSub\GGAF Meetings\2009\9.28.09\09.28.09 Minutes.doc
5. Original Agenda Item #6: Discussion regarding the RFP Process for the 2010 Quality
of Life Survey to be conducted in early 2010 to provide feedback and community
input for the 2010/11 budget cycle – Micki Rundell
Georgetown has been conducting a bi-annual quality of life survey since 2000 and has previously
Ampersand Associates (aka Montgomery and Associates) for those surveys. This year, staff is
preparing a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the upcoming 2010 survey. The purpose of the survey
is to provide direct citizen feedback on basic services and programs that the City provides. The
2008 survey was composed of 65 questions that focused on areas including quality of services and
value received by citizens and taxpayers, as well as, success or failure of various City programs.
Surveys in general are the primary method that cities use to garner community feedback and input
on citywide issues.
The information gained will be a tool for the Council in setting priorities for the 2010/11 budget.
Because this will be the fifth survey the City has done, it will be important to continue to measure
many of the same issues in order to be able to identify trends and know if programs and projects
have had a successful impact. This information also provides the City with on-going benchmark
information to measure success of various projects, as well as, where future resources should be
focused.
By undertaking an RFP process, the City will be able to possibly improve and expand the
information gathered within the survey and possibly save money in the process. The issues to be
considered include:
Continuity of data for trend analysis and comparison of existing results
Similar polling process to insure compatibility with prior year data
Time line for conducting survey
o Survey results should be available no later than March 15, 2010
Reporting results of survey in usable and understandable manner
Because of time constraints, this RFP will be posted in early October, with selection by City Council
no later than December 2009. Micki will bring the questions back to this committee, or to the
Council to tweak and ensure we are measuring the right things.
In 2008, the City paid Ampersand Associates $20,000. There is $23,000 included in the 2009/10
budget to fund the 2010 survey.
Keith made some suggestions for the RFP. He will send these changes and Micki will
incorporate his changes before it is distributed to bidders.
6. Original Agenda Item #3: Discussion regarding proposed changes to the City's
Development Fee structure - Elizabeth Cook
Staff is proposing an amendment to Section 15.04.045 of the Code of Ordinances to update the
development fees. In an effort to simply the fee schedule it has been modified to incorporate all
associated fees into the specific application. As an example, the rezoning application fee includes
the notification, publication, and mapping fees in the base cost. The update also seeks to add fees
for either new applications or processes where we have not collected a fee, i.e. Special Exceptions
(a new process proposed with a pending UDC amendment) and voluntary annexations where we do
not charge a fee.
L:\Division\finance\Share2\GGAFSub\GGAF Meetings\2009\9.28.09\09.28.09 Minutes.doc
Currently, the City’s fee structure off-sets some of the City’s expenses related to application
processing and review; however, the existing fees do not represent the full cost nor has it been the
City’s policy that they should. With the proposed fee revisions, minimal additional cost recovery has
been factored into the calculations with some fees still highly subsidized by the general fund. For
example, the Engineering and Inspection Fees are collected prior to issuing each individual building
permit. However, the engineering review takes place prior to construction plan approval and
infrastructure inspections take place during construction of these improvements. This staff work
may be completed years before a building permit is issued. Another example of a fee subsidy is the
Certificate of Design Compliance fees that are nominal and do not reflect the actual costs to process
the applications.
The last development related fee revision took place in 2007 and included changes to how the
Traffic Impact Analysis fee was calculated, established and increased some of the GIS fees, and
increased the base fee for final plats. In 2005, there was a fee added for Certificates of Design
Compliance applications. During 2003 and 2004 there were some minor fee increases and new
fees were established for application types that were either new with the UDC adoption or where
there had been no fee charged in the past. It does not appear that there has been a major fee
increase for several years.
The Planning and Development Department revenue will be minimally impacted as the revised fees
are collected. There should be a small increase related to collecting fees for those applications that
do not have fees, although some applications have reduced fees for revisions where before
revisions may have resulted in full fees being assessed.
The committee requested additional information for the next GGAF Meeting.
Elizabeth will do a brief analysis of where we compare to other communities; some
rationale basis for the fee structure. They are okay with rolling small amounts in to
one larger amount and combining the fees, they would just like more detail.
7. Meeting adjourned at 3:55 p.m.